philosophiafandomcom-20200214-history
Ontology
There is more in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." William Shakespeare, Hamlet Ontology (ὄντος and λογία) is the study of things insofar as they exist or do not exist. Unlike some domains in philosophy, ontology's subject matter is uncontroversially defined: what there is. Ontological problems, however, constitute the most fiercely disputed questions in metaphysics, concerning such issues as nominal reference, categories of being, passivity and activity, persistence of identity, and the nature of reality. General ways of approaching ontological questions that are deeply rooted in traditional metaphysics date back to Ancient Greece in the respective works of Parmenides and Anaxagoras. These two ways of doing ontology respectively study the nature of "what is" as Being or as Becoming - i.e. as static or as dynamic being. The two approaches are not mutually exclusive, permitting a range of possible positions with two extremes. Starting with this propaedeutic, it seems important not to equivocate over the terms being and existence. One or both have been posited as synonymous with "what is" and ontologists vary over how they understand these metaphysical terms. Their distinction or identity can have consequences for philosophers' understanding of possible entities such as universals, causality or God. Principal Ontological Questions Some broad questions naturally initiate a search for ontological understanding. Variations of these questions have been asked by philosophers at different times throughout history: *What is there? (What entities exist?) *What does it mean "to be"? (What is existence?) *What can there be? (What can exist?) *What are the categories of being? (Can existing entities be classified and, if so, how?) *How does "what is" come into being? (What are causes for the existence of entities?) Considering possible semantic differences between the given and the parenthetical questions may further stimulate inquiry into ontology. For simplicity, the word "entity" has been chosen as a formal equivalent to the word "thing"; these terms will be used interchangeably. Whether more than one term is needed to denote things in discussions of ontology may arise over the course of these investigations. Secondary Questions Ontologists searching for answers to these fundamental problems have arrived at more questions than answers, furnishing a secondary set of ontological questions. *What does it mean to have a property? (What are properties?) *Is existence a property? *What properties, if any, are essential as opposed to accidental? (What are the essences of things?) *Which entities, if any, are fundamental? (What are the first principles of things?) *Does existence precede essence? (Does essence precede existence?) *Does change eliminate the entity that changes? (How does change compare with annihilation?) *Are existing entities particulars, universals, or neither? (Do abstract or concrete entities exist?) After accepting or presuming answers to these questions, even more probing sets of questions can be asked, such as the puzzles in book β'' of Aristotle's ''Metaphysics. Different positions on the fundamental ontological questions may lead to different directions of inquiry for these additional questions. In fact, differences in tertiary lines of questioning seem likely between philosophers with opposing answers to the fundamentals. Being, What is One of the principal ontological terms is the word being. Little meaningful discussion of ontological questions can be held - without talking past one another - without agreement on a clear meaning for being. At various times, being has been used interchangeably with existence, reality, quiddity, or haecceity - the more technical terms of ontologists. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the writings of many greater philosophers have given some diverse meanings to this word being and it is the goal of this encyclopedia to touch upon these distinct uses. A definition cannot be wrong, except with respect to a convention, but it risks being useless. Furthermore, a philosopher risks basing arguments on an equivocation between different meanings of the same word. This mistake is made worse by taking advantage of a common meaning to make an argument for a specialized definition of the term. In presenting definitions for being, an attempt should be made to identify useless ones and to reveal equivocations made in applying any definition. Going further, it may be better to point out the definitions that draw sharper distinctions than others and that present observable distinctions.Category:Metaphysics